Dissenting Voices: The Discourse of Competition in The Sportswoman

Ly n n E. C o u t u r ie r 1 Physical Education Department State University o f New York, Cortland

In the 1920s, the appropriateness o f competition fo r women became contested among educators and the public. In order to avoid the problems associated with mens highly competitive athletics, many women physical educators sought to de- emphasize competition and promote simple participation. According to sport historian Roberta Park, these women were “searchingfo r a middle ground" in the debate. There was, however, another group o f women whose position dis­ sentedfrom the polarizedpositions ofthe public as well as those who promoted the “middle ground” when it came to womens competition. These women were the editorial staff o/The Sportswoman, which was a periodical on womens sport published from 1924 to 1936. While the editors included multiple per­ spectives on womens competition, their own position was frequently in direct conflict with some o f the other contributors. This paper highlights the overt and covert strategies used in the magazine to promote the acceptability o f women’s competition in sport.

T h e author is indexed to the archives at Springfield College anc Bryn Mawr, as well as the library at Smith College, for her source material and their generous assistance. Correspondence to [email protected]. The Sportswoman ( TSW) was a periodical published from 1924 to 1936, ini­ tially as the communication vehicle of the United States Field Hockey Association (USFHA). Although its content expanded dramatically to include many different sports played by women, it retained a core element devoted to field hockey throughout most of its publica­ tion. TSW provided coverage o f womens club, college, and elite level sport; offered in­ structional tips for coaching and teaching; and profiled prominent women athletes and physical educators of the era. It should be noted that the content of 7'5Wstrongly reflected socio-economic status, with the coverage of womens athletics being closely aligned with middle- and upper-class sporting interests.1 The magazines target audiences were club sport players and women physical educa­ tors. Its authors came from similar backgrounds— primarily female and generally associ­ ated with womens sport organizations and colleges (physical educators or students). Of­ ten the authors were women athletes from the national and international ranks in sports such as tennis, golf, field hockey, and figure skating. TSW served as a professional develop­ ment tool for women physical educators, a cheerleader for field hockey and womens ath­ letics, and as a forum (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit) for issues in womens sport.2 At the time of TSW s inaugural issue, women’s sport was growing in overall popular­ ity, but it was a somewhat uneven growth. Social forces such as class, race, and regional differences all influenced the type of sport that was available to women.3 Middle- and upper-class women typically engaged in sport associated with club or college settings. Individual sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, and equestrian events were popular, but team sports such as field hockey, lacrosse, and basketball (modified rules) could also be found, particularly in colleges. Working class and minority women were engaging in sports like basketball, track and field, and bowling organized through community organizations or recreational and industrial leagues. Elite level competition in several individual sports (skating, swimming, tennis, and golf) was already taking place. In addition, industrial sports were beginning to sponsor a few national championships for women.4 This growth in sport opportunities reflected a more general expansion of women into traditionally male roles following World War I along with women’s suffrage in 1920.5 Changing expectations for gender roles were being negotiated in the workplace and social spaces as well as in sport. As athletes, women challenged notions ofwhat competitive sport had historically been—a proving ground for masculinity. How then, were women to be assimilated into an athletic culture?6 The key question, according to historian Martha Verbrugge, was, “Would athletics promote competitiveness and muscularity, while erod­ ing grace and refinement?”7 These concerns were of particular importance to women physical educators, who had long labored to establish themselves as leaders in women’s physical education and sport.8 They sought to define what was appropriate for women’s sport participation and that meant staying within the boundaries of conventional femi­ ninity.9 Such propriety generally involved feminine attire; participation for all girls, not just the athletically talented; activity supervised by female leadership; and no commercial­ ization of the sport experience. Although women physical educators were highly successful in controlling women’s sport in schools and colleges, their influence was limited in recreational, industrial, and elite level sport. When the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) went forward with its plan to send a womens track and field team to the Olympics, many female physical educators believed that the AAU overstepped its bounds. In 1923, the women banded together to form the Womens Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation (WDNAAF) in order to consolidate their control over athletics for women and girls, particularly in schools and colleges.10 The primary objective of the WDNAAF was to de-emphasize competition for women, and their platform became highly influential in the education sector. As Roberta Park has pointed out, their stance should not be judged without consideration for the context of their actions.11 At the time, there was widespread concern about the well-documented abuses in mens athletics, which included recruiting scandals, dubious eligibility status of many players, exploitation of athletes, and commercialization of sport. The womens con­ cerns were shared by many male physical educators, who also wanted to avoid the prob­ lems in men’s organized athletics and provide sport opportunities for all. De-emphasizing the competitive aspects of sport would keep young women safe from the perils of the mens model while minimizing potential criticism that sport would “masculinize” women. In a sense, these women physical educators were “searching for a middle ground,” that is, a way to promote participation of girls and women without the problems associated with highly competitive athletics.12 Indeed, publications of the period reflected this “middle ground” position. According to women’s sport historian Stevie Chepko, the first twenty years of the Spauldings Womens Basketball Guides emphasized cooperation and the social virtues of basketball for women while minimizing its competitive aspects.13 A leading publication for physical education professionals, the American Physical Education Review (APEJ?), carried many articles that discussed the “problem” of girls’ athletics.14 The “problem” was generally too much em­ phasis on competition, and the suggested remedy involved limiting competition to inter­ class or play day events, preferably under the trained leadership of women physical educa­ tors. Mabel Lee, who became the first woman president of the American Physical Educa­ tion Association (APEA), conducted a study of the status of intercollegiate competition for women. This study was published in APER and provides an example of the desire to limit competitive opportunities. She reported that among the survey respondents with experience in intercollegiate competition for women 93 percent opposed it. Similarly, in “Women’s Athletics—All Uses— No Abuses,” Agnes Wayman, member of the Executive Committee of the WDNAAF and vice president of the APEA, stated, “[M]ost of us are agreed that inter-competition is wrong—even under ideal health supervision.” Ethel Perrin, a founder and member of the WDNAAF, spoke for most women physical educators of the time when she said the WDNAAF “did not believe an inclusive program and a selective one can be successfully carried out at the same time in any group and it casts its vote unanimously for the one which provides equal opportunities for health and joy to all girls.”15 For most women physical educators, highly competitive athletics could not coex­ ist with sport for the masses, and the latter was far more important to them. Given that the readership and authorship of TSW was comprised primarily of women athletes and women physical educators, it is not surprising many facets of the discourse on competition were presented within its pages. Indeed, the magazine’s strong affiliation with field hockey presented a continuous and subversive tension surrounding competition. On the one hand, field hockey was considered an appropriate and non-controversial sport for women as it was played predominandy by women (at least in the United States). It had not been sullied by masculine play, leaving women free to run full field without the con­ straints of modified rules.16 On the other hand, club and elite level competition was a significant element of USFHA field hockey, organized through association, sectional, and national level tournaments. This high level competition was actively promoted through­ out the magazine.17 Through the news, images, editorials, and instructional advice the magazine con­ tained, TSW conducted a revealing dialogue about what was gender appropriate competi­ tion. If, as Park asserts, the position of the WDNAAF could be considered the middle ground between barring women from sport and women being co-opted into the highly competitive athletics model, TSW did not adhere to this party line. The editorial staff neither accepted the middle ground nor the typical polarized positions of the mens model versus no competition at all. In fact, the editorial staff provided space for multiple perspec­ tives on womens competition throughout its pages while frequently dissenting directly from the middle ground by offering its own, more competition-affirming position. Competing Correspondence and Editorials The discourse about appropriate competition for women was in full swing when 73’W'began its publication in 1924. Particularly in the early years, much of the argument took place in the form of correspondence and editorials. The controversy over competi­ tion first appeared in TSW in a letter to the editor from Mary Wheeler in March of 1925.18 Wheeler was the Head ofWomens Athletics at the University of Nebraska and an obvious sympathizer with the Athletic Conference of American College Women (ACACW).19 After commenting on the need for a publication like TSW, she took direct aim at the USFHA. She claimed that “our desire to encourage competition in field hockey through the USFHA is somewhat premature in the case of undergraduate women___ The ACACW has emphatically resolved at their last two conferences at Indiana and California to discourage inter-collegiate and open competition of any kind Now, then, since our college women are convinced that they are not ready for open competition, is the USFHA making it any easier for them to stand by their conviction? . . . We are wondering how difficult the USFHA is going to make our effort to raise the standard of athletics for women in our American colleges.”20 The USFHA did not have true intercollegiate teams, but it did have club teams that were situated at colleges and used the colleges name. These teams played under the aus­ pices of USFHA against other clubs comprised of collegiate and post-collegiate players. This structure skirted the issue of varsity competition because the teams were technically clubs. To curtail competition in colleges would have derailed the USFHAs efforts in gen­ erating a significant pool of athletes as well as thwart the organizations attempts to ex­ pand. TSW, as the official organ of the USFHA, replied within the same issue through the Editorials page. The Wheeler letter was introduced as “interesting,” and then TSW'articu­ lated an alternative perspective on the matter: In some parts of the country the distances are so great, and the womens athletic associations so involved with the administration of mens athletic associations that it must make any attempt at women’s intercollegiate competition undesir­ able. The very words intercollegiate competition are unpleasant, and we do not wonder that the idea is repugnant to many. It sounds as though the main idea was to set out to win something, for the college, in the name of the college and something that a college doesn’t primarily exist for. It is perfectly true that this is what in many cases men’s intercollegiate athletics have degenerated into, and it is quite possible that in some cases women’s might also. But on the whole women are sociable creatures and if left to follow their own lines, their games are more apt to be friendly, and conducive to a better understanding of each other than merely an artificial fight for a trophy.21 In other words, women were essentially different from men that, if they were left to their own devices, competition among them would not create the same types of problems found in men’s athletics. It was the flip side of Wheeler’s coin because she was also arguing that women were essentially different from men, but in her mind, this difference meant they should not be competing at ail. Not surprisingly, in the next issue several others weighed in on the topic. Helen Krumbhaar, first president of the USFHA, argued that like the ACACW, the USFHA was trying to “raise the standard of athletics for women in this country both in and out of college.” It was this latter point that she emphasized, in fact arguing that the USFHA was not promoting college field hockey, but club field hockey. To keep players interested, competition between clubs was necessary. She conceded that the ACACW might be right in discouraging intercollegiate competition, but the USFHA was providing an avenue to continue playing after college, which was not the ACACWV concern.22 Anne Townsend, captain of the All-American hockey learn, took a stronger stance. She emphasized that the USFHA was promoting club play, not college, and reiterated that games were necessary to maintain interest. “Competition in itself is a natural and healthy instinct. It promotes interest, mutual understanding and resoect, and sportsmanship. But it is a test, and because some fail to meet it with the right spirit, and use it as a means to gain prizes or fame, shall we abolish it on that account? Rather let us bend our energies to instilling into our games the idea of‘sport for sport’s sake,’ and the ideal of true sportsman­ ship, thereby making our competition the means of bringing out the best that is in us.”23 Certainly Krumbhaar and Townsend had a unique perspective. They were both na­ tional level field hockey players and held key positions on the team or in the USFHA. But others also opposed Wheelers position. Mary Adams and another author identified only as “C.E.” both took the position that perhaps intercollegiate competition was a problem for schools in the West, but at Eastern colleges they had seen only good play and behavior that no one could object to. In their minds, if things were out of control, it was up to the coach to redirect play: the problem was not competition itself but unregulated competi­ tion.24 Mary Wheeler was not easily put off. In another letter to the editor in November of 1926, she reiterated that “American women are not ready for inter-school competi­ tion . . . which calls forth the more discreditable emotions and the less womanly view­ point.”25 There was too much emphasis on winning and personal accomplishment. In the following issue, Cynthia Wesson, then president of the USFHA, took Miss Wheeler to task saying: I remember Miss Wheelers letter of two years ago, but did not answer it at the time since I felt her position was so untenable that it needed no answer. Carried to a logical conclusion her theory would mean that all such food as lobster must be excluded from the adults diet because the same food might not be healthy for children.... I venture to say that where club hockey has been organized for some time, it is played keenly but certainly not in a childish manner.26 Janet Seeley echoed Wessons comments. She cited the play at the first intersectional tournament (held in Baltimore, November 1926) as evidence “there was no desperation or ferocity in either losing or winning, and the raised standard of play (both individual and team play) indicated no inadequacy of supervision.” As to a “less womanly viewpoint,” Seeley replied, “I am not quite sure what this means, but I do not believe that any of the people trying out for the All-American team, thought that they were sacrificing any essen­ tially good quality.”27 The players of the game were lining up in opposition to the ACACW and its philosophy of minimal competition. Wesson seemed determined to keep the ACACW on the defensive. In February of 1927, she wrote another letter to the editor, this time questioning the NAAF policy on girls’ rules for basketball. Apparently, the local league was coached by women, but the girls were playing by boys’ rules and Wesson thought there was some hypocrisy in this. She received a response in the April issue from Emma Frazier, an instructor in physical educa­ tion, who said the ACACW had not changed its rules, but the women were coaching in this league with boys’ rules to prevent men from doing so. In May, an official reply came from Mary Wallace Weir, executive secretary of the WDNAAF. She corroborated Frazier in stating that no change had been made in policy but sometimes violations were made without their knowledge. She reiterated that the NAAF was a “standard-setting agency,” not a governing body and concluded with “it is in order that we may constantly more nearly approach the ideal o f a fair chance for participation in athletics for all girls and for participation under right conditions that we have taken the stand, for the present, against extra-mural competition.”28 Clearly Wesson and the field hockey establishment had an agenda. Like most sport governing bodies, they wanted to spread the game and elevate play to be competitive in the international arena. They often lamented that the play of the American teams was not up to the standards of the top international teams (particularly, the English).29 Indeed, in the April issue of 1925, the editorials page endorsed international field hockey competi­ tion, asserting that it raised the level of the game and promoted international friendships, among other things.30 Accordingly, the USFHA was a strong supporter of the Interna­ tional Federation of Women’s Hockey Associations (IFWHA), which promoted interna­ tional tournaments.31 Given the position of the USFHA, it is not surprising that when offered the opportunity to become affiliated with the NAAF, the USFHA turned them down. They claimed this was because the NAAF had a different purpose (sport in school settings), and thus they had no basis for joining.32 More likely, the philosophical differ­ ences regarding women playing sport were already evident. Alternative Sport Models for Women: Play Days and Inter-Class Games By April of 1926, the forces against competition seemed to be making more headway in TSW. In this issue, the editors mentioned that California had instituted play days as a means to avoid the problems associated with competitive sport.33 This issue also con­ tained an article entided “Ohio State Girls’ Athletic Problems,” which reported on a con­ ference held at the University o f Cincinnati.34 The problems identified included girls playing basketball by boys’ rules, a winning at any cost mentality, lack of attention to students who were not athletes, and a failure to conduct medical examinations. The delegates in attendance adopted the WDNAAF platform and made several rec­ ommendations such as instituting girls’ rules, eliminating basketball tournaments, limit­ ing the number of games played, and promoting intramural competition over interscho­ lastic. Play days were frequently suggested by organizations like the WDNAAF and the ACACW as substitutes for intercollegiate and interscholastic competition. The two orga­ nizations had parallel platforms emphasizing mass participation, healthy living, well-trained women coaches, eligibility standards, and medical examinations for women athletes.35 Because college women physical educators and the ACACW had such a strong presence in TSW, play days began to receive attention in the magazine as a viable alternative to com­ petitive sport, at least within schools and colleges. The intent to limit competition or provide an alternative is evident in statements from a Macalester College play day such as “competition was avoided as much as possible by composing teams of girls from different colleges.”36 Additionally, a report from Elmira College stated the play day had “the purpose of breaking down any ill feeling and rivalry that might exist as a result of competitive games between colleges.”57 The virtues of play days were extolled by Ethel Perrin, Associate Director of the Divi­ sion of Health Education for the American Child Health Association at the time, on the grounds that they provided the benefits of sports (educational, health, and social) to all girls while avoiding the problems of competitive sport.38 The play day model reflected and reinforced the principle that women’s sport was for health and social purposes and was not to be taken too seriously. In May of 1926, TSW carried an article that detailed a play day in Southern Califor­ nia in which five local colleges participated. The day included several relays, contests, and a buffet. At the end, the players left with “the happy satisfaction of competition with and against friends instead of the strain of inter-collegiate competition.”39 The author, Marian Pettit, was a strong proponent of play days. She claimed that “with the burial of inter­ collegiate athletics for women in colleges and universities o f the west, a worthy successor has come into its own. This modern style of athletic competition is the socialized play day.”40 Another good example of play day coverage in TSW was the report on an event held at the University of Cincinnati in the May 1928 issue. The students were placed on color teams so all the schools would be mixed together. The program began with folk dancing, followed by a series of relays and games and a “posture parade.” After a quick swim in the pool, the students changed for a formal dinner. The report concluded by stating that “a whole day of fun and fellowship cannot but lift our code of sportsmanship a little higher—so here’s to PLAY DAY and may it grow and grow and grow.”41 This enthusiasm for play days was expressed over and over again but almost always under a department like the ACACW or the College or School sections. For example, comments like “play days are so much more fun and worthwhile” than interscholastic athletics or “the girls left in good spirits, not at all fatigued by the days’ activities” fre­ quently appeared in play day reports.42 These reports were often written by students, such as Julia Denning (class of ’29) who commended play at a George Washington University sports day: “A sports day of this sort where everyone is playing for the sports’ sake and not to beat another school is fast coming to take the place of intercollegiate competition. It has the advantage of giving the opportunity to participate to more girls than varsity teams and mass participation is what the colleges are trying to achieve.”43 Play day reports stood out from most other TSWarticles (with the exception of those reporting on women’s progress in sport) in that they had a decidedly promotional tone. Sometimes the articles were self-congratulatory, such as the coverage of a play day at North Carolina College, which involved its participants in relays, games, a group swim, a campfire supper, and a play. The author claimed: While men’s sports have tended more and more to verge into professionalism, women’s athletics have been guided by wise hands into channels that would lead to pure amateurism devoid, perhaps of mob excitement, but possessing opportunities for mass athletics. Sports for girls are generally arranged so that the individual thoroughly enjoys playing the game for the fun of competition, and for the exhilaration of the healthful exercise. Education, which should be obtained in college, is necessary to make such games better liked by the players than battles fought for the glory of Alma Mater before a howling or groaning mob of unsportsmanlike spectators.44 The choice of words such as “wise hands” to describe the women’s leadership while using “howling and groaning mob” to describe the other side conveys a sense of moral superior­ ity by the advocates o f this alternative sport model. Like play days, inter-class competition was generally supported by organizations such as the WDNAAF and the ACACW because it provided all girls with an opportunity to play and it was housed entirely within a campus. As a department of TSW, the ACACW received a great deal of coverage, and their conference proceedings, platforms, and resolu­ tions were often published. This extensive reporting gave the organization abundant op­ portunities to publicize its philosophy of competition. For example, the Vassar College WAA president gave a paper on their inter-class system of competition at the ACACW Conference (April 1926), which was reprinted in TSW.*5 At Vassar, each class played two games against the other classes, and the winner received a banner and a cup. Those who failed to make the class team could play for the second team, which played against other class second teams. Those teams were also eligible for a hockey banner. The winning teams accumulated points throughout the year. At the end of the season, a varsity team was selected, but it was essentially honorary— they did not play other teams. Always the mes­ sage of these reports on inter-class competition, awards, and point systems was that inter­ est could be stimulated in sports without intercollegiate competition. Some women went further, suggesting that even the point system should be eliminated.46 After all, if play was for play’s sake, why was any type of award necessary? Ethel Bowers of the National Recreation Association reiterated the value of inter-class competition in her January 1931 article, “Girls’ Basketball: Work or Play?” She described all the problems in competitive girls’ basketball and then oudined how the situation could be changed to alleviate the stress of winning. First, basketball had to be supervised by women physical educators who made instruction the top priority. Games were to be orga­ nized in classes and then inter-class games could be played. Play days could also be ar­ ranged with schools close by, but there was no involvement by outside sponsors that could potentially corrupt the game. Publicity and spectators were to be limited. In this sports model, “[GJames are short, seasons are short, strain is eliminated, because women physical educators are in charge.”47 Agnes Wayman wrote a set of articles for TSW that articulated the case for an alterna­ tive sport model. Wayman was the director of physical education at Barnard College and soon to become vice-president o f the APEA. She wrote: It isn’t competition which so many of us decry, but the high intense type of do- or-die play, motivated not so much by a desire to “play the game,” as by a desire to “defeat someone.” And what of us as leaders—where does our interest lie? In developing a nation of girls who participate in sport arid games because they love them? Do we believe in a democracy of sport based upon that attitude? O r are we going to lend our influence toward developing an aristocracy of sport based upon superiority of skill and championships? Isn’t there room for both? Some of you may ask. My answer is this: When we have generations of partici­ pation behind us; when as a nation we have learned to play and do play; when like our English cousins we can take it all less seriously, then we can hope to encourage interscholastic and intercollegiate and international competition— w ithout evil results.48 The women physical educators in the ACACW, WDNAAF, and APEA spoke pub­ licly with a remarkably uniform voice about competition. They used TSW as one of many tools to promote and reinforce their philosophy. TSW, however, sometimes surveyed womens sport that lay outside the realms of intercollegiate and interscholastic athletics, and in these there were voices of emphatic opposition to the play day and inter-class model. “Competition to Bring Out the Best in Us” That the ACACW spent so much time and effort promoting their alternative model suggests that there v/as resistance to it. In their own conference proceedings from 1930, which were reported in TSW, they noted that “as in all other conferences, the problem of intercollegiate sports for women was given careful consideration. It would seem from the discussion chat intercollegiate competition was gaining favor in many of the colleges. Few, however, participated at the present time. The general opinion seemed to be that it was not advisable for the ACACW to alter its stand against intercollegiate competition at present.”49 The implication was that while there existed some interest in intercollegiate sports among the ranks of women physical educators, there was not enough to compel a reconsideration of the basic position of the ACACW at the time. The editors of TSW and members o f the USFHA also expressed dissent and some­ times frustration with the minimal competition advocated by the ACACW. In the De­ cember 1928 issue that reported on the North Carolina College play day, Ruth Rickaby commented in Circumspice that she “wishe[d] Vassar, Wellesley, and Bryn Mawr would include intercollegiate games.”50 That same year, womens participation in the next Olym­ pic games was again an issue. Rickaby made her views quite clear— the 1928 Amsterdam games had established women’s ability to perform in elite level competition: In my opinion, the 1928 Olympics have proven just once more that women have earned a permanent place in sports. The discussion as to whether women’s events should be a part of the next Olympics was a pathetic anachronism. Even the stupidest mortal must by this time realize that a few women are capable of developing into such experts in particular lines of sport that to watch them is a great pleasure. And it does not take any great astuteness to realize that the feats of those few increase the interest of the vast feminine public, spurring them to further their own efforts. In fact I would venture to state that participation in sports is one of the largest factors in the great improvement in women’s health, both physical and mental.51 Because the Olympic games were the pinnacle of amateur competition, they served as a lightning rod for the debate over the appropriateness of womens participation. In Febru­ ary of 1929, Rickaby’s Circumspice column included a paragraph on the latest resolution of the WDNAAF regarding womens Olympic participation. The WDNAAF had “voted almost unanimously against participation of women athletes in future Olympic games.” The WDNAAF was “launching of a campaign to educate girls in school and college, and other girls not of school and college age, not to train for the next Olympic games.” Rickaby then presented the view of the AAU and the American Olympic Committee on the matter in stating: “This is a reiteration of what they (the women’s division of the N AAF.) said before.. . . They did not give us any assistance in the past and perhaps we can’t expect it this year.. . . The United States will be represented as it always is.”52 The tone of resigna­ tion in the statement gives a good indication of the lack of influence of the WDNAAF philosophy in women’s elite athletics. Given that Rickaby had already commented on the stupidity of those who did not believe women belonged in the Olympics, her sympathies here were clear. Ethel McGary, an Olympic swimmer, was of similar mind. She was in favor of com­ petition if “wisely supervised.” In her article of November 1931, she advocated the impor­ tance of good conditioning to prepare for competition and thought that girls should have the opportunity to compete in longer events. McGary offered some statistics on her fellow Olympians to combat the belief that intense competition was harmful. Describing a sample of sixty women from the last three Olympiads, she found that “20 are married, some 25 to 30 are busily engaged in business or professional pursuits, and from 10 to 12 of the 1928 team are still in colleges. Practically ail, with one exception, are actively interested in swim­ ming today and report no harm resulting from their activities, but on the contrary retain a pleasant memory of an experience which taught them the best possible health habits.”53 Essentially McGary was arguing that elite female athletes were normal women even though they were highly competitive. They married, went to school, and had jobs. They still swam, not because of its former glories, but because it was healthful. Constance Applebee came close to expressing outright disdain for the play day model of athletics. She wrote an article in June of 1930 on hockey festivals in Europe, describing how teams gathered to play each other at some popular vacation destination. In her view this type of competition was superior to play days as it allowed for the full participation of all players, as many teams could be entered as interested, and there was no real champion so the pitfalls of glory seeking were avoided. Applebee noted “that the usual play-day activities belong to the early teen age and that both high school and college students should be given more solid fare, both as to the type of activities and the manner of organi­ zations. That a young woman undergoing a college education should be interested in running about collecting ribbons and counting up points for the winning of childish games or fragments o f real games seems a little out o f the perspective of life.” She went on to say that ideals of play days are laudable, but “it has seemed a pity that the usual medium of carrying out these ideas has been somewhat incommensurate with the ideas them­ selves.”54 It is fairly clear that Applebee was more supportive of competition, including at the collegiate level, than many of her peers. In a newspaper article from January of 1924, Margeret Goss said of Applebee, “perhaps it is because she is an Englishwoman, and been accustomed to it always— at any rate, Miss Applebee declared herself in favor of intercol­ legiate competition.”55 The competition she supported, however, did not go as far as the male model condemned by the WDNAAE More likely, Applebees notion of appropriate competition was derived from the pure amateur ethos espoused in her native England. Competition should be conducted civilly and with the highest ideals. It was a necessary element of sport to bring out the best of each player’s abilities.56 When the WDNAAF made a statement condemning womens intercollegiate athlet­ ics, the Sportswoman Guild (a feature of TSW) replied in the May 1931 issue: “If these statements be accurate, then we are moved to righteous indignation, nay, even to wrath. . . . We are sick and tired of this archaic babying of girls and women.”57 But the Sportswoman Guild also qualified its indignation somewhat. There was no problem with intercollegiate athletics for women because they were well-supervised by physical educa­ tion staffs and all participants had completed medical exams. In addition, their games lacked the speed of the mens, attracted little in the way of gate receipts, and there was never enough funding to support a star traveling team. Thus, women could compete against other colleges without fearing the abuses of men’s athletics. The Apologetic Sportswoman Jan Felshin has called such conditional statements about womens athletics an “apolo­ getic.” Because women athletes have been considered a “social anomaly,” they had used an apologetic stance to deflect concerns about any perceived masculinity and to bolster their social acceptance, which was typically based on femininity.58 This apologetic stance exhib­ ited itself in attention to feminine appearance, “lady-like” behavior, attesting to hetero­ sexual values (desiring marriage and motherhood), a lack of seriousness about sport, and an emphasis on sport for socializing women rather than for fostering and rewarding indi­ vidual achievement.59 TSW did sometimes adopt an apologetic stance in its defense of competition for women. For example, in one article, a Dr. Florence E. Ahlfeldt describes women fencers as “grace, poise, art—here is beauty.”60 Fencing could also be “wonderful for your joie de vivre as well as your figure.”61 Such descriptors emphasized conventional feminine at­ tributes that normally would not have been associated with a martial sport such as fencing. Rickaby describes Beatrix Loughan, who was an Olympic figure skater, as “physically pe­ tite and feminine to the extent of having ‘tresses’ rather than ‘locks,’ she is a devotee of sports.”62 The author makes similar comments about Sonja Henie, commenting about her “golden bobbed blond hair, blue eyes and a remarkably clear and fair complexion... dressed becomingly and with excellent taste,— a light blue velvet dress, the color of her eyes, with simple lines and a close-fitting brown felt hat.”63 Prominent tennis players were sometimes given such femininity-affirming descrip­ tions as well. Betty Nuthall’s outfit met with approval for the “scarlet quill [which] topped a smart black velvet beret, and carried out another touch of scarlet and black velvet on her bottle green dress” while Helen Jacobs was described as “one of the most attractive young women who have ever had a place in the sports world . . . wearing black broadcloth and silver fox with a proper touch of individuality in a small green feather and large jade ring.”64 Such descriptions reflected T S W s concern for the femininity of women athletes, though most articles tended to focus on sportswomens accomplishments rather than on their appearance. TSW editors also made note of what they considered suitable feminine attire for athletic participation. It needed to be free from constraint while remaining sufficiently modest. Athletic costumes should not be worn in public, according to the Viola Paris, style columnist for the New York Post, who quipped “good taste is the essential.”65 The importance of good taste is echoed by the Sportswoman Guild (SWG) in March of 1930, when it comments on Smith Colleges new rompers for physical education. These rompers were “not only cheerful but becoming.... The usual athletic suits are apt to make even a very pretty girl homely, and what they do to a girl not so favored by nature is best left unsaid.”66 The SWG asserted that more feminine sports apparel reflected the welcome fact that “the world realizes at last that women and girls who are fond of athletics are not freaks of nature but perfectly normal and sane.” In an effort to distance themselves from the man­ nish types, the SWG added “it is also hoped that the few fanatics among women who have been guilty of adopting rubber-soled golf shoes for town wear, masculine strides, loud voices and other offenses against good taste, will realize that they are ‘shocking’ no one but themselves and that they are out of date.”67 For sportswomen, there was a proper way to engage in sports and an improper way. Feminine attire and behavior were the markers of acceptability. According to historian Susan Cahn, initial concerns about the “mannish” label were the result of worries that sport would make women “more like men sexually—passionate, uncontrolled, assertive— but neither critics or [«c] supporters suggested that ‘masculine’ athleticism might indicate or induce same sex love.”68 Women physical educators took steps to ensure that their charges were not perceived as promiscuous or “muscle molls” by emphasizing conventional femininity and restricting the types of athletic events in which they could participate. The women physical educators who were the core clientele of TSW kept their distance from working-class women’s sport, which sometimes used women’s sexuality to boost its commercial potential.69 By the mid 1930s, however, the “mannish” label had begun to acquire a decidedly controversial, even dangerous, connotation. Sexologists and psychologists had identified same sex love as deviant. “Mannish” was now the code word for lesbian.70 All-female environments began to look suspect in a climate where womens sexuality was acknowl­ edged but was to be used to attract men and end in companionate marriage. In this climate, athletic women were vulnerable to questions about their womanhood since their activities placed them within the boundaries of traditional masculine pursuits. The de­ fense of women’s sport increasingly had to focus on differentiation from mens sports and markers of women’s heterosexuality. Playing by Ladies’ Rules More and more the manner in which sports were played indicated how appropriate they were for women. The practice of modifying rules to make particular sports less physi­ cally demanding and thus less like the mens game was a standard method for feminization o f sport. For example, the rules of womens basketball clearly constrained the game by removing much of its physicality, a trait considered to be too masculine.71 In some sports, however, men and women played by the same rules. In that case, the two styles of play were sometimes contrasted and differences emphasized. When discuss­ ing squash in TSW, for example, Anne Page commented that “many people ask whether the leading women can compete with the leading men. The best woman player could never compete with the best man player. First, because they haven’t the endurance and secondly because they haven’t the strength to hit the ball as hard.”72 Even skiing came under this type of scrutiny. In an instructional article about downhill skiing, the author stated that “ski jumping and cross-country racing, the two Olympic events, are too much of a physical strain [for women].”73 By making such comparisons, authors reinforced differences between men and women and highlighted womens physical inferiority. Yet, as is often the case in TSW, a contrasting view can also be found. Fred Hawthorne, the tennis editor for the New York Herald Tribune, made a direct comparison to the men’s game in his story on Marbles victory over Jacobs: “O ur new champion plays the truly modern game. Not only are her forcing shots masculine in speed and power, but her tactics are masculine. By that I mean Miss Marble lays down her barrage of drives to open up the opposing court and then goes in behind them, consistently, trusting all to the speed and accuracy of her decisive volleys and to her magnificent power and control overhead.”74 Another example comes from sailing, one of the few sports where men and women could compete direcdy against one another. According to Ray Hand, it was the “one sport in which there is but a single set of rules. No quarter is asked by the women, and none offered by the men . . . and when you win there is no qualifying victory with ‘under special rules.’”75 It’s interesting that these comments were made by men, who did not seem to have the same qualms about women’s competitive drive. Mens sport represented the stan­ dard and to be likened to them was a compliment. By extension, to play under special rules or to differ from the mens style of play rendered the women’s game inferior. Appearance and apparel emphasized differences and offered some protection for women athletes seeking to avoid the “mannish” label. Cahn has pointed out that it was a “deep- seated anxiety that underlay charges of mannishness and ugliness. The presence of power­ ful women athletes struck at the root of male dominance in American society— the seem­ ingly natural physical superiority of men.”76 Feminizing aspects of womens sports, or playing sports that men did not play, lessened this tension over gender appropriateness. But when women entered the realm of serious competition, they were inevitably encroaching on male territory. Highly competitive sport was associated with masculinity as much as physical prowess was. Thus when women engaged in serious competition, they were chal­ lenging the boundaries of femininity and pushing their way into an arena where there was substantial opposition to their participation. Supporters of competition like Rickaby, McGary, and Applebee sometimes adopted an apologetic tone when advocating for womens competition. Rickaby often emphasized the healthful aspects of sport participation as well as the feminine traits of those athletes she profiled. McGary defended competition by noting the marital status of former Olym­ pians while Applebee often played up the social aspects of womens sports. The WDNAAF used similar arguments for promoting sport participation for all girls and limiting compe­ tition for the talented few, that is, sport for girls should be about health and socializing. TSW, however, twisted these same apologetic defenses to promote womens competition while making it less threatening. By pointing out that women athletes were still feminine and gained health and social benefits from participating in sport, proponents of womens competition provided a defense against popular critiques of women’s sport.

Competing Discourses Readers of The Sportswoman were given ample opportunity to consider the various positions on womens athletic competition. There were letters, editorials, and articles both directly supporting competition and opposing it, but the identity of the contributors reveals an important pattern. As would be expected, women physical educators associated with the WDNAAF or ACACW submitted articles and letters that supported participa­ tion of girls and women rather than high-level competition. Elite level athletes and women highly invested in the club sport system put forth the position that competition was an integral component of sport. In their minds, competition did not have to be associated with exploitation and commercialization. Done properly, that is in true amateur spirit, competition raised the level of play and helped to retain the interest of players. Even with apologetic statements that reinforced femininity, these women clearly believed that com­ petition for women was appropriate. In a less direct way, TSW readers were subjected to multiple messages supporting competition in every issue. These messages came in the form of photographs of women in action on the courts and the playing fields, as the vast majority of photos used in TSW were taken during contests. TSW also published rosters of All-American teams, depart­ ments covering international womens sport, and the multitude of articles on national tournaments, championships, and international tours.77 Coverage of club sports (13.9 percent of content) and elite level sports (20 percent of content) was the norm in TSW, and it was clear that the featured athletes were not burdened with restrictions on their competition.78 This type of material undermined the WDNAAF/ACACW message that women should not compete. College women and high school girls could view the maga­ zine and see options beyond the limited scope of their inter-class competitions as well as find worthy national champions to emulate. The discourse on appropriate sport for women was an important element of TSW. The Sportswoman never argued that womens sport should be a replica of men’s, nor did it endorse the WDNAAF/ACACW position. Indeed, at times, TSW vociferously dissented against discourse that limited womens competitive opportunities. The editorial boards leanings are clear: competition was a natural part of sport for women. There may be some parameters and those were often class-based (in true amateur spirit and with feminine propriety), but TSW provided support for womens intercollegiate, club, national, and international sport. Although the founders of the publication clearly had their own com­ petitive agenda, they allowed a variety of perspectives on this issue to be presented within its pages. Perhaps that even handedness was influenced by the fact that their readership included both athletes and WDNAAF/ACACW members and that the magazine could not afford to alienate either group. It is also possible that by permitting multiple views, the editors may have swayed some readers who were unsure about the appropriateness of competition for women to adopt a more affirming position. Whatever the motivation, the open dialogue about competition in TSW reflected the conflicting attitudes about gender roles in this period and provided a dedicated group of sportswomen a platform for their distinctive views on womens competition.

K e y w o r d s : w o m e n ’s s p o r t , competition , s p o r t m a g a z in e s , f ie l d h o c k e y

'For a detailed analysis of the content o f The Sportswoman, see Lynn E. Couturier, “Considering The Sportswoman, 1924-1935: A Content Analysis,” Sport History Review 41 (2010): 111-131. 2Ibid. 3For sources on womens differing sport experiences, see Linda J. Borish, “‘The Cradle o f American Champions, Women Champions... Swim Champions’: Charlotte Epstein, Gender and Jewish Identity, and the Physical Emancipation of Women in Aquatic Sports,” InternationalJournal ofthe History o fSport 21 (2004): 197-235: Susin K. Cahn, Comingon Strong: Gender and Sex:iality in Twentieth Century Womens Sport (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 36-39; Lynne Emery, “From Lowell Mills to the Halls of Fame: Industrial League Sport for Women,” in Women and Sport: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. D. Margaret Costa and Sharon R. Guthrie (Champaign, 111.: Human Kinetics, 1994), 108-118; Monys Ann Hagen, “Industrial Harmony through Sports: The Industrial Recreation Movement and Womens Sports” (Ph.D. diss., University ofWisconsin-Madison, 1990); Gerald R. Gems, “Working Class Women and Sport: An Untold Story,” Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 2 (1993.': 17-30; Joan S. Hult, “Have the Reports of the Death of Competitive Women’s Athletics, 1920-35, Been Greatly Exaggerated?” in Pro­ ceedings: North American Societyfor Sport History, 1980; Rita Liberti, “We Were Ladies, We Just Played Basketball Like Boys’: African American Womanhood and Competitive Basketball at Bennett College, 1928 -1942,” Journal o f Sport History 26 (1999): 567-584; Barbara N. Noonkester, “The American Sportswoman from 1900-1920,” in Her Story in Sport: A HistoricalAnthology ofWomen in Sports, ed. Reet Howell (Westpoint, N.Y.: Leisure Press, 1982), 178-222; and Linda Feavey and Ursula Smith, “Outside Shot: The Girls from Fort Shaw Indian School, Basketball Champions o f the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair,” presentation at the Eastern District Association o f the American Alliance for Health, Physical Educadon, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) Convention, Springfield, Massachusetts, February 2005, copy in possession o f author. 4Noonkester, “The American Sportswoman,” 181-205; Borish, ‘Cradle of American Champions,” 197; Emery, “From Lowell Mills to the Halls,” 110. 5For more on changing social roles in the 1920s, see Lynn Dumenil, Modem Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995); Mark Dyreson, “Icons of Liberty or Objects o f Desire? American Images ofW omen Athletes in the 1920s and 1930s,” in Proceedings o f the North American Societyfor Sport History, 2000; Dave Kaszuba, “Bringing Women into the Sports Pages: Margeret Goss and the 1920s,” American Journalism 23 (2006): 25 Angela Latham, Posing a Threat: Flappers, Chorus Girls and Other Brazen Performers o f the American 1920s (Hanover, N.H.: Wesleyan University Press, 2000); Nathan Miller, New World Coming: The 1920s and the MakingofModem America (Cambridge, Mass.: De Capo Press, 2003); Michael E. Parrish, Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992); and Joshua Zeitz, Flapper: A Madcap Story o f Sex, Style, Celebrity and the Women Who Made America Modem (New York: Crown Publishers, 2006). 6See Helen Lenskyj, “Common Sense and Physiology: North American Medical Views on Women and Sport,” Canadian Journal o f the History o f Sport 21 (1990): 49-64; Anthony Rotundo, “Learning About Manhood: Gender Ideals and the Middle-Class Family in Nineteenth Century America,” in M an­ liness and Morality: Middle-Class Masculinity in Britain and America 1800-1940, eds. J.A. Mangan and James Walvin (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987), 35-51; and Tony Ladd and James A. Mathisen, Muscular Christianity: Evangelical Protestants and the Development o fAmerican Sport (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Bridgepoint Books, 1999). 7Martha H. Verbrugge, Able-Bodied Womanhood: Personal Health and Social Change in Nineteenth Century Boston (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 158. 8See Park, “Searching for a Middle Ground,” 129. 9Lynn Couturier, “Play with Us, Not against Us: The Debate about Play Days in the Regulation of Womens Sport,” InternationalJournal of the History o fSport 25 (2008): 423. I0Much has been written about the Women’s Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation (WDNAAF). For more detailed history o f the groups work, see Karen V Epstein, “Sameness or Differ­ ence? Class, Gender, Sport, the WDNAAF and the NCAA/NAAF,” InternationalJournal o f Sport History 9 (1992): 280-287; Joan S. Hult, “The Governance o f Athletics for Girls and Women: Leadership by Women Physical Educators, 1899-1949,” Research Quarterlyfor Exercise and Sport Centennial Issue (1985): 64-77; Ellen Gerber, “The Controlled Development of Collegiate Sport for Women, 1923-1936,” Jour­ nal o f Sport History! (1975): 1-28; and Nancy Theriot, “Towards a New Sporting Ideal: The Women’s Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation,” Frontiers; A Journal ofWomens Studies 3 (1978): 1-7. “Park, “Searching for a Middle Ground,” 141-144. l2Ibid, 127. l3Steveda Chepko, “The Domestication o f Basketball,” in A Century o f Womens Basketball: From Frailty to Final Four, eds. Joan S. Hult and Marianna Trekell (Reston, Va.: AAHPERD, 1991), 109-124. 14The idea o f girls’ athletics as problematic appears frequendy in the American Physical Education Review. For examples, see “Outstanding Problems of Girls’ Athletics,” American Physical Education Re­ view 31 (1926): 846-848; Grace E. Jones, “Girls’ Athletics in High Schools,” American Physical Education Review 32 (1927): 365-367; and “Report o f the Advisory Committee on Athletics for High School Girls,” American Physical Education Review 33 (1928): 254-260. 15See Agnes Wayman, “Women’s Athletics—All Uses— No Abuses,” American Physical Education Review 29 (1924): 517-519; Mabel Lee, “The Case for and against Intercollegiate Athletics for Women and the Situation As It Stands To-day,” American Physical Education Review 29 (1924): 13-19; and Ethel Perrin, “More Competitive Athletics for Girls— But of the Right Kind,” American Physical Education Review 34 (1929): 473-476. l6For discussions on the acceptability of certain types o f sports for women, see Kathleen E. McCrone, “Play Up! Play Up! And Play the Game! Sport and Late Victorian Girls’ Public Schools,” in From 'Fair Sex’ to Feminism: Sport and Socialization in the Industrial and Post-Industrial Eras, eds. J.A. Mangan and Roberta J. Park (London: Frank Cass, 1987), 118; Park, “Searching for a Middle Ground,” 127-145; and Hult, “The Governance of Athletics,” 73. Park notes the hypocrisy in allowing women free rein to play in field hockey while other sports were modified for acceptability in Roberta Park, “Sport, Gender, and Society in a Transatlantic Perspective,” in From ‘Fair Sex’ to Feminism, eds. Mangan and Park, 84. 17The pyramid structure of field hockey tournament play is discussed in depth in Roberta J. Park, “Symbol, Celebration, and the Reduction of Conflict,” in The M any Faces o f Play, ed. Kendall Blanchard (Champaign, 111.: Human Kinetics, 1986), 232-247. For the coverage of elite level field hockey in TSW, see Couturier, “Considering The Sportswoman,” 119-120. l8This letter first came to my attention in researching play days, see Couturier, “Play With Us,” 431- 432. In that paper, the letter and some of the responses to it are briefly summarized. In this paper, this letter and its responses are expanded. l9The Athletic Conference o f American College Women (ACACW) was a group strongly affiliated with the philosophy and platform of the WDNAAF. “ Correspondence, The Sportswoman 1 (1925): 9. 21Editorials, The Sportswoman 1 (1925): 1. ^Correspondence, The Sportswoman 1 (1925): 7- 9; 7 [QUOTATION]. 23Ibid., 9. “ Ibid., 8. “ Correspondence, The Sportsw om an! (1926): 30. “ Correspondence, The Sportswoman 3 (1927): 24. ^Correspondence, The Sportswoman 3 (1927): 24-25. “ Correspondence, The Sportswoman 3 (1927): 28; correspondence, The Sportswoman 3 (1927): 28; correspondence, The Sportswoman'S (1927): 26 [q u o t a t io n ]. See also correspondence, The Sportswoman 4.3 (1927): 81. “ For example, see Ann Townsend, “The Fourth Annual Inter-Ci-y Tournament,” The Sportswoman 2 (1925): 7; and editorials, The Sportswoman, 1 (1925): 1. “ Editorials, The Sportswoman 1 (1925): 1. The benefits of international play are often touted in TSW. See also The Sportswoman Guild, The Sportswoman 10 (1934): 5. "For example, see “The International Federation of Women’s Hockey Associations,” The Sports­ woman 4 (1927): 83-84; Anne B. Townsend, “International Federation Convenes,” The Sportswoman 11 (1934): 10; and Gertrude Hooper, “A Message to All Hockey Players in America,” The Sportswoman 12 (1935): 15, 26. 32USFHA Executive Meeting, The Sportswoman 1 (1925): 4. “ Couturier, “Play with Us, N ot against Us,” 423. "O n the Sidelines, The Sportswoman 2 (1926): 4; “Ohio State Girls’ Athlet.c Problems,” TheSports- woman 2 (1926): 8. 35ACACW, The Sportswoman 4(1927): 21-22; ACACW, The Sportswoman 5 (1929): 24; ACACW, The Sportswoman 6 (1930): 27; ACACW, The Sportswoman 8 (1932 t: 22; “ACACW Becomes Athletic Federation for Women,” The Sportswoman 9 (1933): 11. “ “Circumspice,” The Sportswoman 6 {1930): 10-12. 37ACACW, The Sportswoman 7 (1930): 24. “ Ethel Perrin, “When Sport Takes on a New Significance,” The Sportswoman 7 (1931): 7-8, 29. "Marian E. Pettit, “A Southern California Sports Day,” The Sportswoman 2 (1926): 13. “ Ibid., 12. 41“A11-University Play Day University o f Cincinnati,” The Sportswoman 4 (1928): 227. For an ex­ ample of at the high school level, see “Play Day for High School Girls,” The Sportswoman 4 (1928): 255. 42ACACW, The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 27; ACACW, The SportswomanA (1927): 101. “ “College Section,” The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 26-28. See also “Play Day at North Carolina Col­ lege,” The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 29. " “Play Day at North Carolina College,” The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 29. “ Miss Keeler, “Ways and Means o f Arousing Interest in Athletics,” The Sportswoman 2 (1926): 10- 11. See also Miriam Nichols, “The Uniform Point System,” The Sportswoman 2 (1926): 29. "Nellie M. Eastburn, “The Abolishing the Point System at Ohic State,” TneSportswoman 4 (1927): 77-78. See also ACACW, The Sportsw om an! (1931): 25-26. 47Ethel Bowers, “Girls’ Basketball: Work or Play?” The Sportswoman 7 (1531): 15-16. "Agnes R. Wayman, “Let’s Take It in Our Stride,” The Sportswoman 10 (1934): 14-15. Wayman makes similar points in “Comments on Concepts of Physical Education for Girls and Women,” The Sportswoman 11 (1935): 8 and “Comments on Concepts of Physical Education for Girls and Women: Second Installment,” The Sportswoman 11 (1935): 9-11, 20-21. "ACACW, The Sportswoman 7 (1930): 26. 50“Circumspice,” The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 16-18. " “Circumspice,” The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 19. 52“Circumspice,” The Sportswoman 5 (1929): 15. 53Ethel McGary, “Ethel McGary Favors Competitive Sports for Women If Wisely Supervised,” The Sportswoman 8 (1931): 11-12. ,4ConstanceM.K. Applebee, “Hockey Festivals,” The Sportswoman 6 (1930): 8. “ Newspaper clipping, Margeret Goss, “Hockey Most Popular Sport at Bryn Mawr; Intercollegiate Contests Generally Favored,” Correspondence with Clippings, folder 9, box 3, Constance M.K. Applebee Collection, Bryn Mawr Archives, Bryn Mawr University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. “ Park, “Sport, Gender and Society,” 58-93. See also McCrone, Playing the Game. “The Sportswoman Guild, The Sportswoman 7 (1931): 6. “ Felshin, “Dialectics of Women and Sport,” 203. "Ibid., 204-206. See also Wughalter, “Ruffles and Flounces,” 11-13. More recently, Mary Jo Festle has applied the idea o f the apologetic to womens sports history from the 1950s to the 1990s. See Festle, Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies. “ Florence E. Ahlfeldt, M. D., “Fencing— Its Relation to Health and Beauty,” The Sportswoman 9 (1933): 12-14. 61 “In the Looking Glass,” The Sportswoman 13 (1936): 27. 62Ruth D. Rickaby, “Beatrix Loughan,” The Sportswoman 4 {1928): 139. 63Ruth R. Darmstadt, “Queen of the Figure Skaters,” The Sportswoman 6 (1930): 8. See also “The All-EnglandTouringTeam,” The Sportswoman 5 (1928): 7. MJanet Owen, “Marquee Memories,” The Sportswoman 11 (1934): 16; “Helen Jacobs Plans Her Season,” The Sportswoman 11 (1935): 9. “ Viola Paris, “Exercise and Proper Clothing,” The Sportswoman 5 (1929): 8. Her sentiments were shared by the WDNAAF who believed that scanty uniforms on women athletes sexualized sporting events. They used concerns over dress as evidence for the need for women coaches as well as keeping women’s games out o f the public eye. See Helen Lenskyj, Out o f Bounds: Women, Sport a n d Sexuality (Toronto: Womens Press, 1986), 68. “ The Sportswoman Guild, The Sportswoman 6 (1930): 6. 67Ibid. “ Cahn, Coming on Strong, 168. 69Donald J. Mrozek, “The Amazon and the American ‘Lady’: Sexual Fears of Women as Athletes,” in From 'Fair Sex" to Feminism, eds. Mangan and Park, 268. 70Cahn, Coming on Strong, 174. 71See Chepko, “The Domestication o f Basketball,” 109-124; as well as Joanna Davenport, “The Eastern Legacy: the Early History of Physical Education for Women,” Quest 32 (1980): 226-236; June Kennard, “The History of Physical Education,” Signs 2 (1977): 835-842; and Richard A. Swanson and Betty Spears, History o f Sport and Physical Education in the United States (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1995) for modified rules in womens sport. As a point o f interest, Roberta Park notes that it was perfectly acceptable for women to run 100 yards end-to-end in a field hockey game at the same time that basket­ ball was being constricted. See Roberta Park, “Sport, Gender and Society in aTransadantic Perspective,” in Fair Sex to Feminism, eds. Mangan and Park, 84. 72Anne Page, “First International Squash Racquets Tournament,” The Sportswoman 9 (1932): 9. 73“Downhill Ski-Running for Women,” The Sportswoman 9 (1933): 14. 74Fred Hawthorne, “Nor Victory to the Strong,” The Sportswoman 13(1936): 15. 75Ray Hand, “Salt in Her Blood,” The Sportswoman 12 (1935): 20. 76Cahn, Coming on Strong, 207. T o r detailed information on the content in the magazine, see Couturier, “Considering The Sports­ woman," 111-131. 78Couturier, “Considering The Sportswoman," 121-122.